A consistent project record helps reviewers place a measurement in its work area, compare its history, and understand what needs attention.
Organize around the actual work areas.
A deep excavation may have instruments around the perimeter, on a retaining structure, and on neighboring assets. A single list of field identifiers does little to explain these relationships. Start with one project and recognizable sites, then place each instrument within the area it represents.
Use groups for review packages that span locations, such as a set of tilt instruments or the equipment managed by a contractor. Keep logger assignments and source mappings visible so field staff and data operators have a common starting point when a reading needs investigation.
Bring existing collection systems into the review.
Connect delimited FTP files, supported Affinity sources, or custom senders using the Ingestion API. The route depends on the installed collection equipment and its available interfaces. You can bring different routes into the same project while retaining distinct instrument and channel identities.
Commission representative readings before extending the setup across the job. Check source timestamps, units, missing-value conventions, and calculated outputs against the monitoring procedure. Use ingestion runs and pipeline diagnostics to verify where a problem occurred instead of assuming that a connected source has produced usable values.
Give each review meeting a useful view.
Build dashboards around the questions asked during the project: how selected variables changed over a period, how nearby instruments compare, or whether a reference channel helps explain a change. Pair graphs with value tables and notes identifying the work area and the purpose of the view.
Use absolute time ranges when investigating a particular period of construction activity. Review calculated variables alongside their source channels when needed. The project team brings its knowledge of the works; SanSignal provides a consistent place to inspect the associated instrument record.
- Location context for instruments around active works.
- Engineering calculations tied to their inputs and constants.
- Saved views for project-specific review questions.
Agree what should prompt attention.
Configure anomaly definitions around the variables and criteria in your monitoring plan. Test selected targets, units, comparison conditions, and any consecutive-reading requirement. Assign a severity and route email actions to the appropriate project contacts.
Keep the response procedure explicit outside the condition itself: who reviews the occurrence, which additional measurements they inspect, and how they coordinate with the site team. Review notification recipients and access when responsibilities change, and retain historical context as instruments are retired.
Common questions.
Can different contractors contribute readings?
Different sources can feed the project through supported connections or an integration using the Ingestion API. Plan instrument naming and channel mapping together to keep each contributor's data unambiguous.
What is a useful first scope?
Choose one work area, representative instruments, one or two collection routes, and a real review question. Verify the full workflow before extending the same structure to the rest of the project.